Trillet v. Lee County Detention Center et al (JCINMATE1)

Filing 5

RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that (1) the plaintiff's claims against the Lee County Detention Center be dismissed prior to service of process; (2) the Lee County Detention Center be dismissed as a defendant in this cause of action; (3) this case, with respect to the plaintiff's claims against defendants Burk and Stewart, be referred back to the magistrate judge for appropriate proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 8/16/2005. Signed by Judge Susan Russ Walker on 8/3/05. (sl, )

Trillet v. Lee County Detention Center et al (JCINMATE1)

Doc. 5

Case 3:05-cv-00694-MEF-SRW

Document 5

Filed 08/03/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAM A EAST ERN DIVISION BILLY W. TRILLET, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) LEE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-694-F WO

RECO MMENDATIO N OF THE MAGIS TRATE JUDGE T his is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which the plaintiff, Billy W. Trillet, challenges the medical treatment provided to him during his confinement in the Lee County Detention Cent er. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that the Lee Count y D e t e n t ion Cent er should be dismissed from this cause of action prior to service of p r o c e ss in accordance with the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).1 DIS CUS S IO N T he plaintiff names the Lee County Detention Center as a defendant in this cause A prisoner who is allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in this court will have his complaint screened in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This screening procedure requires the court to dismiss a prisoner's civil action prior to service of process, regardless of the p ay ment of a filing fee, if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim up on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:05-cv-00694-MEF-SRW

Document 5

Filed 08/03/2005

Page 2 of 3

of action. A county detention facility is not a legal entity subject to suit or liability under sect ion 1983. Cf. Dean v. Bar b e r , 951 F.2d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir. 1992). In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that the plaintiff's claims against the Lee County Detention Cent er are due to be dismissed. Id. CONCLUS IO N Accordingly , it is the RECOM M ENDAT ION of the M agist rat e Judge that: 1. The plaintiff's claims agains t the Lee County Detention Center be dismissed prior t o service of process pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 2. The Lee County Detention Cent e r be dismissed as a defendant in this cause of act ion. 3. This case, with respect to the plaintiff's claims against defendants Burk and

St ewart , be referred back to the undersigned for appropriate proceedings. It is further ORDERED that on or before A u gu s t 16, 2005 the parties may file objections to this Recommendat ion. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

M agist rat e Judge's Recommendat i o n t o w h ich the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised t hat this Recommendation is not a final order of t he court and, therefore, it is not ap p ealable.

2

Case 3:05-cv-00694-MEF-SRW

Document 5

Filed 08/03/2005

Page 3 of 3

Failure t o file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M agist rat e Judge's Recommendation s h a l l bar the party from a de novo determination by t he District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from at t acking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the Dist rict Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. DONE, this 3rd day of August, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker SUSAN RUSS WALKER UNIT ED STATES M AGIST RAT E JUDGE

3